As the November election approaches, we are hearing an ever-louder chorus of voices from the left calling on the United States to normalize relations with the oppressive Cuban regime. Advocates of a rapprochement between the United States and the regime claim that our policies have been a failure. They insist that closer economic ties between the two countries would better serve U.S. interests than our current approach toward the regime. Contrary to the assertions of some academics, pundits and talking heads, the embargo has not been a failure. It has been a proven and effective means of keeping the United States safe. Curiously, those who support closer ties with the Cuban regime never discuss the Castro brothers' long record of anti-Americanism. In view of that oversight on their part, a brief discussion of the historical record might serve to shed some light on why we should maintain the current U.S. policies against the regime.
The embargo was first put in place following an act of aggression on the part of Cuba's communist leadership. Shortly after the Castro brothers' rise to power in 1959, the Cuban regime stole close to $2 billion worth of privately owned U.S. properties (close to $14 billion in current dollar terms). In response to these unwarranted actions, the United States chose to impose an economic embargo aimed at protecting the interests of its citizens. In 1962, the Castro brothers called on the USSR to launch a nuclear strike against the United States. In Fidel's own words, "I wrote to Khrushchev [on October 26, 1962] ... It was my opinion that, in case of an invasion, it was necessary to launch a massive and total nuclear strike [against the United States]." To get at its enemies, the Cuban regime was willing to risk nuclear annihilation. Fortunately, the USSR ignored the Castro brothers' crazed call for Armageddon and removed its nuclear missiles from the island -- perhaps out of fear that the Cubans might take over the weapons facilities and use the missiles without Soviet approval. Undeterred, the Cuban regime sponsored numerous "internationalist" campaigns in Latin America and Africa during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, with the goal of undermining United States' interests in those parts of the world.
Following the loss of Soviet subsidies in the 1990s, the Castro brothers were forced to adopt a different approach. Despite the crippling economic downturn that resulted from the collapse of the USSR, the Cuban regime was able to maintain its exports in one important area: spies. Naturally, there have been numerous high-profile incidents over the past decade involving Cuban-linked spies. For instance, shortly after Sept. 11, the FBI apprehended Ana Belen Montes, a high-ranking official at the CIA with access to classified information about our battle plans against the Taliban, for spying on behalf of the Castro brothers. Frighteningly, who knows how many more casualties our brave men and women in the armed forces would have sustained in Afghanistan had our battle plans been leaked to our enemies on the ground? At present, the regime is thought to have more than 200 well-placed operatives in the United States -- many of whom are doubtless in positions of power, like Montes. In addition to its own intelligence-gathering efforts in the United States, the Cuban regime also assists other (less-than-friendly) countries with their espionage activities. Of particular note, the Chinese maintain a spy base on the island with the blessing of the Castro brothers.
Far worse, however, is the fact that the Cuban regime has chosen to provide succor and material support to terrorists. Cuba is a safe haven for members of terrorist organizations such as the ETA, the FARC and the ELN. It has refused to track, block or seize terrorist assets. Meanwhile, Cuba has allied itself with state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and Syria. During a May 2001 visit to Iran, Fidel Castro said that "Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees." Given the two countries' "peaceful" biotechnology exchange program, there is more than ample reason to be concerned. Beyond its strategic ties with state sponsors of terrorism, the Cuban regime maintains close ties with a large number of nations who are hostile toward the United States. Recently, for example, there has been growing concern that the Russians are planning a return to Cuba. That Russia's renewed presence on the island should come just months after its unwarranted and aggressive actions in Georgia is another indicator of how far the Cuban regime is willing to go to undermine and thumb its nose at the United States.
To this day, Cuba is not a responsible member of the international community. It is a locus of anti-American activity. Cuba may be a "small country," as Senator Barack Obama claimed this summer, but it's big enough to pose a threat to U.S. security. As such, reversing the travel ban and the limitations on remittances, which have deprived the Cuban regime of the material resources with which to militate against the interests of the United States and our allies, would be irresponsible. The travel ban and the limitations on remittances are no different from our efforts to freeze al Qaeda-linked bank accounts. In both instances, our government is simply acting to stop the flow of dollars that would go abroad to sponsor the killing of U.S. citizens. Indeed, our sanctions on Cuba are as valid and as justified as the ones we still impose on Iran and imposed on North Korea.
In these dangerous times, it is disturbing that the left would be more concerned with permitting Americans to drink mojitos in Havana than defending this great nation. By seeking closer ties with Cuba's regime, which has been on the list of state sponsors of terrorists for more than two decades, the left is proving once again that it is disinterested in protecting the interests of the United States. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident, for the left also seeks ties with other rogue regimes -- Cuba's closest allies.
There is a clear choice this November. We must elect John McCain to keep our policies toward Cuba's rogue regime in place. Michael A. Fernandez is a master's candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
--
Michael A. Fernandez is a master's candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
